search this blog

Tuesday, August 27, 2019

Isotopes vs ancient DNA in prehistoric Scandinavia


Four of the samples from the recent Frei et al. paper on human mobility in prehistoric southern Scandinavia are in my Global25 datasheets. Their genomes were published along with Allentoft et al. back in 2015. So I thought it might be interesting to check whether their strontium isotope ratios correlated with their genomic profiles.

In the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) below, RISE61 is a subtle outlier along the horizontal axis compared to the other three Nordic ancients, as well as a Danish individual representative of the present-day Danish gene pool. Also note that RISE61 shows the most unusual strontium isotope ratio (0.712588). The PCA was run with an online tool freely available here.


To help drive the point home, here's a figure from Frei et al., edited by me to show the positions of RISE47, RISE61 and RISE71. If RISE276 was also in this graph, he'd be sitting well under the "local" baseline, in roughly the same spot along the vertical axis as RISE47.


Interestingly, RISE61 belongs to Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a-M417, while RISE47 and RISE276, who appear to have been locals, both belong to R1b-M269. My guess is that RISE61 was a recent migrant from a more northerly part of Scandinavia dominated by the Battle-Axe culture (BAC). The BAC population was probably rich in R1a-M417 because it moved into Scandinavia from the Pontic-Caspian steppe via the East Baltic. This is what Frei et al. say about RISE61 and his burial site:

The double passage grave of Kyndeløse (Fig 1, S1 File) located on the island of Zealand yielded 70 individuals as well as a large number of grave goods, including flint artefacts, ceramics, and tooth and amber beads. We conducted strontium isotope analyses of seven individuals from Kyndeløse encompassing a period of c. 1000 years, indicating the prolonged use of this passage grave. The oldest of the seven individuals is a female (RISE 65) from whom we measured a “local” strontium isotope signature ( 87 Sr/ 86 Sr = 0.7099). Similar values were measured in five other individuals, including adult males and females. Only a single individual from Kyndeløse, an adult male (RISE 61) yielded a somewhat different strontium isotope signature of 87 Sr/ 86 Sr = 0.7126 which seems to indicate a non-local provenance. The skull of this male individual revealed healed porosities in the eye orbits, cribra orbitalia, a condition which is possibly linked to a vitamin deficiency during childhood, such as iron deficiency.

By the way, RISE47 was buried in a flat grave, which suggests that he was a commoner. RISE276 was found in a peat bog in Trundholm, where the famous Trundholm sun chariot was discovered (see here). He may have been a human sacrifice.

Citation...

Frei KM, Bergerbrant S, Sjögren K-G, Jørkov ML, Lynnerup N, Harvig L, et al. (2019) Mapping human mobility during the third and second millennia BC in present-day Denmark. PLoS ONE 14(8): e0219850. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219850

See also...

Commoner or elite?

Who were the people of the Nordic Bronze Age?

They came, they saw, and they mixed

256 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 256 of 256
Davidski said...

I wonder if the Germans are holding back the Tollense battle paper because this year is the 80th anniversary of the Second World War? LOL

Drago said...

@ Archi

“Oooo”

- are you constipated ? Try some Figs

“Go learn History. Mycenaean civilization began in the XVI century or you did not finish school?”

16th century is Shaft Grave horizon; which develop from tholoi used for hundreds of years earlier

Gaska said...

I hope it's not true, on that battlefield we have at least one Basque waiting for us. We know the chalcolithic better than the Bronze Age in Europe, and in my opinion the key to understanding the dispersion of the IE languages ​​is the Central European Bronze Age.

It seems we have another Tartessian genome. This is an individual who has been found in the Tartessian sanctuary of Turuñuelo de Guareña (Badajoz-400 BC) - It has not yet been published. I have asked the chief archaeologist of the excavation and he says it will not take long. Apparently there is no news (I guess it will mean that it is R1b-P312) although there was much speculation because the sanctuary was destroyed after a ceremony where dozens of horses, some oxen and a dog were sacrificed (supposedly due to the threat of the Celts ).In the sanctuary a Greek sculpture has also been found (commerce, settlers?, DNA will solve our doubts)

Gaska said...

https://m.europapress.es/extremadura/noticia-yacimiento-tartesico-turunuelo-guarena-badajoz-gana-premio-nacional-arqueologia-fundacion-palarq-20181109172451.html


Look at the photo of the sacrifice, we have many horses to analyze

Unknown said...

@Drago

Do not fantasies. Mycenaean civilization was began about 1600 BC.
Your imagination on what happened of that do not matter. In the previous period in the Peloponnese it did not speak Greek, it is known clear, linear writing was not invented for the Greek language.

zardos said...

"The really important thing is that there's Z93 in the Bronze Age Balkans and Carpathian Basin.

I'm pretty sure those Z93 individuals weren't the only two at the time in the area. There will be more of them, maybe many more, and not just in Bulgaria and Hungary."

Even if they didn't made it in a big way to Poland, since the Carpathian region was so closely interlinked with the Unetice centres, it would have had a direct impact in any case. It almost certainly would have significantly weakeneed the whole Unetice system.

And the Unetice collapse should be directly linked to the quick Nordic Bronze Age development imho. Whether they brought I1a or just some other minority lineages which diappeared afterwards or survived on a very low level in Scandinavia is open to debate. But the NBA "explosion" can never be explained by local development, but direct, strong foreign impulses and I guess the most important, early and formative one was Unetice "refugees", whether they came as beggars or in a more demanding way. And if a local lineage used their knowledge, this might have boosted it like a foreign invading one.

Concerning Scandinavia, whether NBA is already completely Germanic or not, is open to debate. But the recent results from NE should caution us for all possibilities, including the survival of different, now extinct languages in the region.

Tollense really looks like a case for an invasion, with more primitively equipped locals attacking an invader in an almost Teutoburg forest like style. If you look at the weapons, some are like local made tribal equipment, others look like highly paid mercenaries and aristocrats in an adventure like Pizarro and Cortez. Just with a worse ending. Probably an internal dispute and one side called for help from the whole known world whereas the other relied more on a local draft. Specialist were killed by storming tribal warriors, including bowmen and cavalry.
Its worth to note than in Tollense - again in the Bronze Age - we have a proof for the use of horseback cavalry.

"Well, let's put this into perspective, during the Bronze Age we had these sorts of guys running around in what is now northeastern Germany, and they're quite different from RISE174. Not overly Germanic-like either."

Well, like I proposed, the more data we have, the more we will find the different strata from Central Europe incoming into Scandinavia and some forming regional variants which might have survived far longer, some even to the Viking Age like you saw yourself.

At the same time Scandinavian like people lived in Central Europe which might have pushed away different incomers, making it look like a continuity, when it is actually now. Only precise IBD checks and y-lineages will clear that up once the data is coming in.

Unknown said...

The time of Tollense battle is the destruction of the Tumulus culture, the creation of the Lusatian and Urnfields cultures, the beginning of the Catastrophe of the Bronze age called World War Zero.

Drago said...

@ Archi
Migrations to Peloponnesus occurred 2300 BC; not 1600 BC
Make use of the internet

Unknown said...

@Drago
"Migrations to Peloponnesus occurred 2300 BC; not 1600 BC"

You are mistaken. There were three migration to Peloponnese - about 2300 BC from Anatolian like CHG; about 2000 BC of Minyans (approximately Luwians); about 1600 BC of Mycenaean Greece Achaeans.

"Make use of the internet"
Don't be ashamed. Use scientific literature, but not your ignorance. You always write categorical statements in topics in where you know nothing, you just don't have even school education, some imagination.

zardos said...

@Archi: I think Tumulus to Urnfield is one of those cases were its possible to argue for continuity rather than a strong break. There are a lot of cases for transitional burials and I just don't see as much of a collapse as in the times before. Rather an expansive movement from within? A religiously inspired expansion after a demographic build up? Probably one of these expansions just went North, but was blocked at Tollense, at least for the time of this battle - probably they succeeded later.

There is an economic and network collapse at that time, but rather because of what happened from within Tumulus, rather than because of external, non-domestic, non-natural influences.

Moktimelsko said...

@Archi, @Drago

Aegean Prehistorian here.

Let me summarise the state of affairs here regarding Mycenaeans and EBA archaeological evidence.

1) In the EBA I and II periods (ca. 3100/3000-2300/2200 BC) the people of southern Greece (i.e. the regions of Boeotia, Attica, and the entirety of the Peloponnese) seems to have established a cultural zone with a set of common material cultural and societal characteristics. Whether or not the EBA cultures followed that of the Final Neolithic directly or after a hiatus is still debated.
What seems certain is that, when it reached its socio-cultural peak in the advanced EH II period, the so-called Early Helladic culture shared the following:

* the “corridor houses” of arguably administrative function;
* the use of schist and clay roof tiles;
* the extensive use of seals and “sealings”, usually interpreted as evidence for control over taxation in kind;
* some sort of settlement hierarchy in sub-regions, i.e. larger settlements at the centre with smaller sites as one goes further away to peripheral “settlement rings”;
* common drinking customs, exemplified by a “sauceboat & saucer” drinking set;
* rare metallurgy: very few copper and some arsenic bronze, no real tin bronze.

2) A corresponding EBA cultural zone in the Cyclades has a common culture of its own, both in contact with Crete and southern Greece, but entirely distinct nevertheless.

3) In western Anatolia, on the other side of the pond, there is yet another cultural zone, which also encompasses the northern Greek islands (see: Thermi, Poliochni). Here we see the start of the urbanisation process in EBA I, with the use of megara as administrative buildings, and the introduction of the potter’s wheel and tin bronze from southeastern Anatolia in several different phases of EBA II depending on the site (see any Anatolian archaeology handbook for Küllüoba, Karataş, Troy, Beycesultan, Limantepe, and Aegean prehistory handbooks for Troy, Thermi, and Poliochni). An Anatolian trade network is hence postulated by many for EBA II and many others extended this to the Aegean as well.

Now, the bottom line:
In the Cycladic islands, during the EC IIB period, a new, according to many intrusive, material culture appears: the so-called Kastri Group. Anatolian pottery shapes like depas (plr. depa) and tankard, potter’s wheel, and tin-bronze appear in some of the Cycladic settlements, and some newly established sites bear architectural resemblance to the Anatolian ones.

Equally important, in Attica, Boeotia, and on the island of Euboia off the Attica coast, a similar development occurs, with Anatolian/Northern Aegean-like material culture appearing in tandem with the existing EH II ones, the so-called Lefkandi I culture.
Some, like Rutter for example, consider these later EBA II developments two pages of the same book and Lefkandi I/Kastri Group evidence of the same phenomenon.

It should be noted that, in this period, i.e. EH IIB in Attica and Boeotia and EC IIB in the Cyclades, there is no archaeological evidence for conflict and/or destruction horizons. Therefore many see a trade network phenomenon here, others think technology/customs transfer, still others peaceful infiltration of Anatolian or northern Aegean peoples into southwestern Aegean.

THEN:
At the end of EH IIB, Peloponnesian EH IIB sites are destroyed, EC II cultural assemblage disappeared from record, and the surprising level of sophistication reached in southern Greece vanishes. In the EH III period (i.e. 2300/2200-2100/2000 BC) the situation is drastically different. Messenia and Laconia are entirely deserted, Argolid and northwestern Peloponnese display an entirely different material culture, with apsidal buildings, potter’s wheel, somewhat evolved Anatolian-inspired pottery shapes.

Some scholars, therefore, see a population movement here, i.e. those who had already come slightly up north during the Lefkandi 1/Kastri Group phenomenon, now at the start EH III destroyed the Peloponnesian EH II sites, eventually from northern Aegean/Anatolia.

Angantyr said...

@Drago

Galley graves are from TRB period. They’re reused in later periods

No, TRB built passage graves, the gallery graves are an LN/EBA thing (in Scandinavia).

Moktimelsko said...

N.B.: The material culture of EH III seamlessly evolves into that of Middle Helladic I, which, in turn, seamlessly evolves into that of MH II and later into the “Shaft Grave period”, which starts NOT in LH I as it was believed until 1950s, but in MH III, i.e. 1800 BC in higher chronology and 1700 BC in lower. The tholos tradition is not the predecessor of the shaft grave tradition, it is its exact contemporary, with the earliest tholoi starting in Messenia also in MH III ,as the first shaft graves were starting in the Argolid around the same time. The distinction is geographical.

The changes that happened in the MH III and LH I periods (chariots, wealth accumulation, appearance of material from the Baltic, Crete, Anatolia, distinct type of Mycenaean weaponry, etc.) NOW are certain to have appeared “gradually”, after the excavation of MH III tholos and settlement assemblages and most important, Grave Circle B shaft graves, the theories of the sudden appearance of a Greek-speaking elite during the shaft grave period have one or -at most- two proponents in the discipline.

Aegean prehistorians have not really been interested into “which ethno-linguistic group came when and where and whence” type of questions for a long time now, not because they are clueless but because they believe that there are more interesting questions to ask in archaeological analysis. For the minority who still think about these issues, who are mostly linguists rather than archaeologists, the evidence I summarised above might indicate the following:

A)For the proponents of the “Luwian hypothesis”, i.e. scholars who believe that a Luwian-like language was one of the pre-Greek indigenous languages spoken in Greece (and perhaps Crete).

A.1.) A pre-Greek Luwian-like substratum was the language of the the EH I and II cultures of southern Greece, in this case a hiatus following final Neolithic in southern Greece would fit the general picture better. Greek-speakers must have come from Anatolia with the Lefkandi 1/Kastri Group and later infiltrating Peloponnese in EH III (i.e. 2400-2200). In this case Greek & perhaps Armenian would have to be in Anatolia EBA I, the former migrating westward, the latter staying in the east.
PROBLEM: No evidence for a Greek-like substratum in any of the western Anatolian MBA toponyms. The Lefkandi 1/Kastri/Anatolian assemblage does *not* really reach Macedonia and the Balkans, which is problematic in terms of Phrygian, which is very close to Greek and for the later northern Greek dialects including ancient Macedonian. Wilusa (Troy) having Alaksandu in the LBA doesn’t mean much for the EBA mobility, and can be explained by Trojan LBA contact with the Mycenaeans.

A.2.) The Luwian might have come with the Lefkandi 1/Kastri/Anatolian group in 2400-2200 BC, which would work nicely in terms of Anatolian linguistics. But then the arrival of the Greek-speakers would indeed be needed to be pushed down further towards

EITHER:

A.2.1.) The start of the MH (i.e. 2100/2000), perhaps together with the appearance of the tumuli. PROBLEM: The earliest tumuli already start in EH III, there is no material cultural evidence for an MH arrival from elsewhere. Some Adriatic cultural contact seem to be present in northwestern Peloponnese already in EH III, but nothing that could point at large scale migration. Greek in EBA Adriatic would be linguistically problematic anyway.

OR:

A.2.2.) The start of the “Shaft Grave Period”. PROBLEM: As stated above, the EH III-MH I-II-III material continuity is too strong, the accumulation of wealth in two different regions that starts around MH III is now certain to have been gradual rather than sudden. The impact of Crete is far more important than any other element in the Early Mycenaean period’s wealth accumulation and social stratification.

Moktimelsko said...


B)For scholars who do not buy the Luwian hypothesis:

B.1.) Greek was already the language spoken in EBA southern Greece, the pre-Greek substratum is earlier Neolithic.

B.2) The non-Luwian pre-Greek substratum comes from the culture of EH I-II, the EH III cultural change should be assigned to Greek speakers. PROBLEM: same problems as A.1 above.

Unknown said...

@Moktimelsko

All this is a presentation of the Anatolian hypothesis from the supporters of the eternal autochthonism of IE in Anatolia and Greece. In general, propaganda outdated views by ignoring data. The Greek theme conducted by local archaeologists mainly that the for obvious reasons almost all autochthonist.

Drago said...

@ Moktimelsko

Many thanks for your input

“Some scholars, therefore, see a population movement here, i.e. those who had already come slightly up north during the Lefkandi 1/Kastri Group phenomenon, now at the start EH III destroyed the Peloponnesian EH II sites, eventually from northern Aegean/Anatolia.”

That’s what I suspected.

“because they believe that there are more interesting questions to ask in archaeological analysis. For the minority who still think about these issues, who are mostly linguists rather than archaeologists, the evidence I summarised above might indicate the following:”

Agree; however understanding mobility & how people interacted is also interesting ; when not analysed in isolation. It surely adds to the wealth of information

“the theories of the sudden appearance of a Greek-speaking elite during the shaft grave period have one or -at most- two proponents in the discipline.”

Well it seems we now have 3.;)

Thanks again for the details

Unknown said...

The text writenby Moktimelsko is not valid with him in the scientific world, no one agrees. The accepted scientific truth is only what I wrote.

Unknown said...

@zardos "I think Tumulus to Urnfield is one of those cases were its possible to argue for continuity rather than a strong break."

The violence is essence emerged the Urnfield culture. Who knows what happened there, the Urnfield culture has produced expansion in the course related to her population without a change of this population, mostly peaceful. However, the external impulse was also, while this time, the expansion of the Cordoned Ware culture from the East that people will pay highly influenced the Sea Peoples. The Tollense war shows that events were not peaceful everywhere.

zardos said...

One of the problems is that in the Mediterranean and Near East, cultural and material affiliations might not always be as close to ethnic identities as they are in the North. Especially not, if we deal with a minority-elite invasion.
Bell Beakers should make us cautious in this respect, considering that the culture was spread over two quite different groups of people with different genetic profiles of which one conquered the other in a later phase of the culture.

"The changes that happened in the MH III and LH I periods (chariots, wealth accumulation, appearance of material from the Baltic, Crete, Anatolia, distinct type of Mycenaean weaponry, etc.) NOW are certain to have appeared “gradually”, after the excavation of MH III tholos and settlement assemblages and most important, Grave Circle B shaft graves, the theories of the sudden appearance of a Greek-speaking elite during the shaft grave period have one or -at most- two proponents in the discipline."

So what if it was more like an infiltration and the conquest in a step by step fashion, with the Greek speaking units getting the upper hand at some point for the whole region? There is no need for a sudden appearance of Greek-speaking elites in the whole region, or is there?
The tribal affiliations of early Greeks, and even later ones, always point to the North and Phrygian too is much more likely to have come from Europe to Asia rather than vice versa.

zardos said...

"The Tollense war shows that events were not peaceful everywhere."

That's what I was saying. There was conflict and change within the TC culture leading to Urnfield with external influences being not as strong as in the preceding major transitions. But this change resulted in the demic diffusion of TC/UFC groups in virtually all directions. One was going North, resulting in Tollense, others went South, resulting in disruptions in the Eastern Mediterranean - again others went to Italy etc.

capra internetensis said...

@Moktimelsko

Thanks for that summary.

Unknown said...

@capra internetensis

That is not good summary, he deliberately bypasses mainstream version accepted by the scientific world. It's like is

- in end of EH III to Greece come Luwians (Minyans), which destroy it and create Minyans Middle Helladic culture MH together with the local tribes.

- at the end of the MH III to Greece come the Achaeans and create Mycenaean civilization in Late Helladic period LH together with the local tribes.

The subtleties of both processes are of course unknown now. But of course in no way the Greeks could not live in Greece, in the III Millennium BC even in the time of Herodotus the Greeks were essentially a minority in Greece, he clearly reports that most of the peoples of Greece is not Greek in origin, and some even speak languages of pre-Greek (Pelasgian). Naturally, this would not have been possible if the Greeks had lived in Greece for more than a thousand years.


He disagrees with in advance the wrong version rejected by science

Leron said...

The "Luwians in Greece" is pure speculation. Almost no Luwic substrate is found among the early Greek language, and if anything it seems like Mycenaeans and Luwians had relatively late contacts, with the Greeks playing an aggressive role against the Luwian states subdued by the Hittites, as known from cuneiform accounts. It's more likely there existed a certain non-IE population between both Asia Minor and the Greek side of the Aegean that became absorbed by the incoming IE speakers from either direction, and their last refuge was Crete.

Greeks didn't suddenly emerge from the onset of Linear B usage; they must have been present in the mainland for a much longer period of time until they slowly infiltrated most cities and dominated the relatively peaceful Minoans.

Unknown said...

"The "Luwians in Greece" is pure speculation."

No, absolutely not speculation. This is based on linguistical, sourced and archeological facts.

" if anything it seems like Mycenaeans and Luwians had relatively late contacts, with the Greeks playing an aggressive role against the Luwian states subdued by the Hittites"

It is time Troyan war, here is the speak about pre-Myceaen time.

"Greeks didn't suddenly emerge from the onset of Linear B usage; they must have been present in the mainland for a much longer period of time until they slowly infiltrated most cities and dominated the relatively peaceful Minoans."

The unwarranted assumption.

Samuel Andrews said...

Welzin warriors.

One is from the Baltic states, one is from Spain or Italy, one is a Celt (similar to modern French), then most of them are Polish-like I guess.

Simon_W said...

@Davidski "I wonder if the Germans are holding back the Tollense battle paper"
Have they started writing it at all? Maybe they're the sort of guys like the Aegean archaeologists according to Moktimelsko, believing that there are more interesting questions to solve than ethnic origins and identity.
Anyhow, I'm kind of glad that, even though the largest part of my ancestry is German, my nationality is not, and I was born and raised elsewhere, LOL. So the German war crimes are not really my issue, I can easily distance myself from them.

Samuel Andrews said...

I think a few of the Polish posters here told me pops in central Europe had Baltic_Corded Ware ancestry before the Slavs. Congrats, you were right, I was wrong. I admit when I'm wrong

The local population represented in the battle I guess are a partial ancestor of modern Polish/western Slavs. They look like a Baltic_Corded Ware+Hungary BA mix.

Then, they also recruited mercenaries from: Spain or Italy, Gaul/Celt, and Baltic.

That's really fascinating. This kind of contact-organization and large battle, goes against the idea that before the Roman empire people in Europe outside the Mediterranean were primitives. It seems there were some powerful kings/clans in Bronze age Europe who had big armies.

Samuel Andrews said...

Crap! Scratch that. I don't how much Baltic_Corded Ware there is in them. When you use the most HG-rich Hungary BA samples it disappears.

Unknown said...

" It seems there were some powerful kings/clans in Bronze age Europe who had big armies."

Hardly. The Roman army was strong, but there were no kings in the Republic. Kings and clans are not necessary for big armies to exist.

Samuel Andrews said...

"Hungary BA", must be an ethno-lingustic group who was widespread in Bronze age central Europe. The differences between Celts/Hallstatt, Hungary BA, and Baltic BA are pretty big. They make Bronze age northern Europe look more diverse than it is today.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Archi,

You're right. All I mean, is that there seems to have been some organization. The organization can be done by kings, a republic, whatever. Mainland Europe was not unfamilar with large scale war fare which requires a lot of organization. Obviously, Julis Caesar easily conquered them.

Samuel Andrews said...

6.6161"

Welzin_BA_Germany:WEZ58

Varna,40.4
Romania_HG,35.4
Yamnaya_Samara,24
Tisza_LN,0.2

3.2343"

Hungary_BA:I1504

Tisza_LN,39.8
Yamnaya_Samara,24.5
Romania_HG,16.2
Varna,14.1
Lepenski_Vir:I5407,5.4

I forget if I1504 dates to 1000 BC or 2000 BC. Whatever the case we're seeing the same people group living in both Bronze age Hungary & Germany who contributed some ancestry to modern western Slavs.

They're a fascinating group in European variation. Because they don't exactly fit as being northern European or southern European. They had only 25% Yamnaya but lots of WHG.

Davidski said...

@Samuel Andrews

You can't insult people in the comments here, even if you have a point to some degree. Surely there's a better way to communicate your point.

Samuel Andrews said...

Yamnaya EEF WHG ANE
WEZ15 23.7 35.8 28.6 11.7
WEZ59 23.3 35.9 30.5 10.2

They're farmer ancestry is from Danube/Lengyel/Hungary farmers. So, I'd say this population originated in modern Hungary. They have 40% Central Euro HG ancestry! More HG than farmer.

Davidski said...

@Archi & Drago

Cut it out. Act like adults.

Matt said...

Welzin BA main cluster are interesting in G25. Something like present day South Slavs/Hungarians in the drift dimensions that distinguish Baltic_BA, but they have less Yamnaya related ancestry and more EEF+WHG than present day South Slavs/Hungarians (as noted above).

Much the Hungary BA really.

Images: https://imgur.com/a/kIm34l8

So, if you assume some degree of continuity, I think there's a good question of how you get from these populations to those like present day North East, South East and East-Central Europe. It seems like you need a small dose of extra CHG/Yamnaya related ancestry (and there are various plausible sources for this all over the place, so I wouldn't want to wager a guess)? A kind of mirror population of how Welzin BA are displaced towards WHG+EEF.

Drago said...

@ Leron

“Greeks didn't suddenly emerge from the onset of Linear B usage; they must have been present in the mainland for a much longer period of time until they slowly infiltrated most cities and dominated the relatively peaceful Minoans.”

I was under the impression that Minoans are from Crete
Apart from a few trade outposts; I don’t think “Minoans” lived in the mainland. The identity of those on the mainland before the 2300 BC tumult’s is more difficult to discern. Could be pre-Greeks or earlier Greeks. Going back further; the other main demographic shifts occurred way back in 3300 BC

Drago said...

@ Matt

“So, if you assume some degree of continuity, I think there's a good question of how you get from these populations to those like present day North East, South East and East-Central Europe. ”

The indications are there isn’t population continuity; & that Modern Slavs are an expansion from a truncated core of that former expansive cline.

Leron said...

@Drago: Greek was richly infused by a pre-IE language within the mainland. There’s a set of toponyms shared in Crete, Asia Minor and mainland Greece that points to a common cultural origin, despite the Minoans in Crete developing a more advanced civilization than the others around them. I believe it has a slow infiltration, including absorption of the older population to a great degree, which makes the cultural demographics difficult to discern.

Drago said...

@ Leron
You mean the -nth- & -ss- ? Perhaps
But the similarities between mainland & Crete are broad; not specific. Hence it is wrong to consider mainland Greece as Minoan

Samuel Andrews said...

Maybe, most dead soldiers cluster with Hungary BA people because they lost the battle.

I don't think they were native to Germany. Their ancient roots are in southeast Europe, specifically Hungary. They had Danube farmer & central European hunter gatherer ancestry. They had no Bell Beaker, Corded Ware, or Unetice ancestry. Not native to Germany.

Halberstatdt_BA, the redhead with Y DNA R1a from 1300 BC East Germany, probably represents the native population of Bronze age Germany. He's mostly of Corded Ware Germany origin. My guess is the battle was between his people & an invading army from Poland or Hungary.

rozenblatt said...

Speaking about Tollense: surprisingly, there are no good English-language documentaries about Tollense(There are some in German, but I don't speak German). That's weird, since the topic is fascinating. I wonder whether they want to release the documentary simultaneously with the aDNA paper.

FrankN said...

Some notes on Unetice:

1. A major feature of Untice is the re-establishment of the Elbe-Danube communication axis via Bohemia and Moravia that had shaped the Central European EN. The Baden expansion, replacing Lengyel and related Pannonian cultures northwards, had interrupted this axis and resulted in the Baden - epi-Lengyel (TRB/GAC) antagonism. This antagonism culminated in the violent destruction of Baden-influenced Salzmünde by the GAC/Bernburg coalition around 3,100 BC. The subsequent entrance of Steppe populations (CWC) remained confined to the Elbe basin and was as such also not conducive to re-establishing the Elbe-Danube axis. Arrival of BBs, which incorporated a substantial Iberian element, in Pannonia, Bohemia and MES paved the way towards re-establishing the link, but it only became fully functional again during the Unetice period.

2. Unetice's genesis has remained somewhat mysterious to me. Apparently, proto-Unetice arose south of MES. OTOH, recent excavations of the Pömmelte henge (at the Elbe-Saale confluence) point towards a smooth transition towards Unetice in MES. E.g., Pömmelte has delivered jars that were clearly Unetice-like in shape, but decorated in typical MES BB style. Pömmelte is otherwise intriguing for demonstrating an apparently peaceful co-habitation of CWC, BB, and the GAC-derived Schönfeld Culture during the 24th-22nd cBC. A main Unetice feature is the re-appearance of longhouses – an EEF tradition alien to CWC and also BB, but preserved by the Schönfeld Culture. Culturally, Unetice appears to have been an amalgamation of various traditions, including CWC, BB, Schönfeld, possibly also Baden, plus a hefty dose of Troad influence (obvious when it comes to bronze metalurgy, and very likely as concerns socio-politics).

3. Unetice's economic base appears to have been channelling Cornish (possibly also Erzgebirge) tin towards the E. Mediterranean - an area devoid of tin ressources- via said Elbe-Danube link. In addition, Unetice also traded Baltic amber to the WC Mediterranean (though not yet to the E. Mediterranean). It appears to have been quite effective in establishing a trade monopoly on tin, and a techonological monopoly on producing tin bronzes. Unetice's richness in tin bronzes, and the presence of Unetice-manufactured bronces such as halberds around the amber-rich Baltic Sea, contrasts markedly with the scarcity of bronze finds in EBA SW Germany.

4. I don't think that Unetice's collapse around 1600 BC is just by co-incidence contemporary to the Thera eruption. It is by now well evidenced that the Thera eruption caused the demise of the Minoan civilisation (of seven major urban settlements on Crete, only one, Knossos, survived that eruption) and facilitated the rise of Myceneae. The Thera tsunami appears to have devastated coastal areas (including ports, ships, warehouses etc.) as far as Sicily and the Levante, and certainly meant a major disruption of long-range trade networks. It apparently also lead to several „volcanic winters“. Around 1600 BC, we don't only see a collapse of Unetice, but also a major crisis in Egypt, the Hittite conquest of Babylon, and eventually even the disappearance of the IVC.

5. After 1600 BC, previously monopolised flows of raw materials suddenly reach new markets. One example is Cornish tin, previously restricted to the Unetice sphere and the Danube/Pontic/ Aegaean, now also appearing in SW Germany (Tumulus Culture) and Scandinavia. Another example is Baltic amber, pre-1600 BC mostly absorbed by Unetice, during the MBA finding its way to Mycenaeae and Egypt. I suppose that similar post-1600 BC diversifications of raw material provision also took place elsewhere along the EBA Cornwall-Aegaean-IVC trade link, e.g. towards Ethiopia, Arabia, SEA or China.

Drago said...

Thanks Frank
Where you place this Tollensee battle; in terms of culture / history

Davidski said...

@Angantyr

Do you have any details about the burial site/grave of RISE94, the Battle-Axe sample from Viby, Sweden?

Carlos Aramayo said...

@ Davidski

Apologies for changing the issue, but I´ve got news. It seems that this week results from Rakhigarhi's ancient DNA will be published, and it also seems they have samples from another site near Rakhigarhi which is called Farmana for a forthcoming publication. They are launching a new project called 'Reconstructing the population history and domestication patterns in prehistoric India'.

You can see a brief information here:

https://tinyurl.com/y5o9rfyk

Davidski said...

Yep, I've heard. Let's hope the paper isn't based on one low coverage sample.

Unknown said...

@Carlos Aramayo @Davidski

I'm afraid the expectations on Rakhigarhi's paper are overrated. I'm afraid there will happen few samples.

Unknown said...

@rozenfag "Speaking about Tollense: ..."

Not only that. For more than twenty years, no one had even made anthropological measurements of the Tollensee people.

Drago said...

@ Zardos
To wrap up about Germanic; I will simply state that there’s something very wrong with the Copenhagen model; just like their entire steppe model
ADNA from Historic Germanic groups shows them to be I2a2, U106 & I1.

Davidski said...

There's definitely some R1a there too. One of the Iron Age samples from southeast Norway belongs to it, and then plenty of Vikings do as well.

So what language did the R1a Norwegian speak?

zardos said...

@Drago: I think we will detect no huge but still significant structure between regional and tribal groups in Germanics.
Even modern Germanic regions show structure, especially in the y-chromosome.

Since some of this structure can be attributed to different waves from Central Europe, timing and relations are important.
Now R1a especially in Norway could be interpreted as an older stratum derived from CW/BA most likely, but probably thats wrong.
Landscape and subsistence pattern was different too and the winners are more likely to take the best spots. A lot could be done with more aDNA data points.
A slow shift of yDNA could be digested without a language shift. A sudden impact like Corded Ware or BB in Britain rather not.

Since Schönfelder culture was mentioned once again, is there any aDNA available? Cant recall it right now.

Drago said...

Yeah perhaps Nordic & East Germanic were different to Suebic groups

natsunoame said...

It has always been like this. At the beginning that was only one tribe bearing that name.
“The original term Sclaveni would seem to be a real tribal name (with a typical -eni plural ending).”  - P.M. Barford, The Early Slavs, Culture and Society in Early Medievial Europe, The British Museum Press, London, 2000,  c.29.
The name starts to adjust for parts of Poland from XII century, for Russians and Ukrainians just from XVIII century.
It's not hard to guess who are the first one if you have basic knowledge about European history.

Angantyr said...

@Davidski

Unfortunately I don't have much info about RISE94. The Allentoft 2015 supplementary material states "grave 26:1" which probably is an identity assigned by archaeologist Mats P. Malmer in one of his publications. I wish the'd use the identities assigned by the Swedish National Heritage Board instead.

A picture of his skull is probably shown in this thesis, but the only information about him there is that he was probably killed by a strike to his head, after having survived two previous head wounds: https://lup.lub.lu.se/search/publication/2e3a602e-5601-4e77-9700-6b291060cba6

Davidski said...

@Angantyr

Nice! A pro Battle-Axe warrior probably!

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 256 of 256   Newer› Newest»